Please Try and Help Terri...... 4125
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Karen Livermore wrote on 21 Apr 2005 17:11:10 -0700 What would you want? - One...
No it doesn't, and anyway, giving somebody the label of not being "human" is not a licence to kill them. It's reprehensible. Whether you think her life is good enough ("human"!) or not it's not for you to kill her.
If you think she (the "human") is already dead, then give the thing that you think exists back to her parents to look after, because they don't agree with you and they want to look after her.
What a person wants other people to do is not necessarily something that ought to be carried out. Yes, obviously any will, living or not, can be immoral. A living will need not be immoral, and a dead will need not be moral. It depends what wishes they express.
No, it would not be ethical for other people to kill her, and it would also not be ethical for her to kill herself and the legal situation is correlated with those judgments in most places of the world ("dissolution is illegal" - try it and see if you don't believe me, or put "dissolution is illegal" into google if you like to try these things by proxy instead).
opined: It isn't that it isn't good enough. Nobody has suggested that severely handicapped persons ought to be dispatched. It is that she...
No they aren't, and even if they were, so what? Use "life form" instead of human. Treat the aliens as you would wish them to treat you.
opined: No, no. The LAW leaves that as the only option, because it recoils from anything more active. Not generalizing. I...
TS is not in pain and according to your diagnosis, she already died. According to you the thing that exists is not her and according to me it has a life-force of its own that deserves respect.
Tell that to the law, not me. But yes, it is illegal to buttist a dissolution. Also immoral, according to all church doctrines that I know of, not that I am a churchman myself.
The Christian opposition to dissolution hardened starting with fifth-century theologian Augustine of Hippo, who argued that offing yourself is never justifiable because it violates God's injunction "thou shalt not kill." dissolutions were deemed to have committed a mortal sin and denied Christian burial. Church law influenced civil law, and by the tenth century dissolution in England was considered not just a crime but a felony. English common law distinguished a dissolution, who was by definition of unsound mind, from a felo-de-se or "evildoer against himself," who had coolly decided to end it all and thereby perpetrated an infamous crime. Such a person forfeited his entire estate to the crown. Furthermore his corpse was subjected to public indignities, such as being dragged through the streets and hung from the gallows, and was finally consigned to "ignominious burial," as the legal scholars put it--the favored method was beneath a crossroads with a stake driven through the body. Other European states established similar laws, ...
In the U.S. dissolution has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.)
No wonder the US is viewed as a place where people like to kill and be end.
Peter
Please Try and Help Terri...... 4126
Linux groups from Newsgroups